It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?
It's not that a statute was only violated one time. It's that the burden of proof of the offender's intent is required to prove gross negligence.
No its not. That is a policy of the DOJ and again has no bearing on the actual statute.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?
It's not that a statute was only violated one time. It's that the burden of proof of the offender's intent is required to prove gross negligence.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra
Alright, it is my understanding that Comey was pushing for the (a) section and when questioned by Gowdy and M...something, he stated that it did not apply due to the intent.
originally posted by: Realtruth
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: JinMI
Pardon my ignorance but because a statue it only violated one time, that demands a pass from doing it again?
It's not that a statute was only violated one time. It's that the burden of proof of the offender's intent is required to prove gross negligence.
She doesn't have to prove any " Gross Negligence", in my book, she is a Liar, she perjured herself multiple times, and is a despicable presidential candidate.
People should be ashamed for even defending her, on any level, or any other candidate with these tendencies.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra
Alright, it is my understanding that Comey was pushing for the (a) section and when questioned by Gowdy and M...something, he stated that it did not apply due to the intent.
originally posted by: introvert
...
She has plausible deniability.
That being said, cite whatever law, code or statute you like. You guys have no credibility left at all and it is completely reasonable to suggest that it would be illogical to give your opinion any weight whatsoever, when you have already proven to be unable to properly interpret such codes and put them in context with past precedent.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Former First lady, Senator in Congress, Presidential candidate 2008, Secretary of State, Presidential candidate 2016.
She knew what she was doing, she knows what classified is and she knows her server was illegal.